Alaskan Wilderness and Oil Drilling [Archive]

Desertrat

Apr 25, 2004, 07:58 PM

It is my understanding that a better comparison than "rain forest" for the Alaska NWR would be "desert". Rain forests get a lot of precipitation, and have a far faster rate of healing. From reading, the northern coast of Alaska doesn't get very much precipitation.

As for the part of the ANWR where drilling is proposed, I understand that it is along the coast. That's across a very wide plain from the mountains and forests commonly shown on TV when "ANWR" is referred to. Of the however-many million acres of the Refuge, a very few hundred would be affected by the drilling operations. The connecting pipeline would probably affect more acreage than the actual drilling sites.

I'm not an expert on tundra ecology. I won't go into the problems of pipeline construction on the tundra or the ways to ameliorate the associated environmental problems, since that's outside my area of expertise. I do know from numerous articles that all the horrible things that were supposed to happen to the wildlife along the Alyeska pipeline didn't happen, so it's difficult to give credence to the cries of, "Woe! Woe!" coming from the same sorts of sources.

I don't have much sympathy for the WoeWoe crowd in California or Florida as regards offshore drilling, for that matter. In the Gulf of Mexico, the common behavior of the fishing guides when taking charters offshore is to head for an oil or gas rig. That's where the fish are. A drilling rig provides about two acres of habitat per hundred feet of depth, and an entire food chain begins when one is put in place.

Regardless, there's not enough oil in Alaska or off the coasts of California and Florida to make us independent of OPEC and the rest of the oil-exporting nations. Our only hope is to increase our energy efficiency, change our life styles, and probably build more nuke plants as well as other stuff such as wind and solar.

'Rat

mactastic

Apr 25, 2004, 08:03 PM

Do you have any sympathy for the WoeWoe crowd in Prince William Sound?

Mav451

Apr 25, 2004, 08:09 PM

Haha at least you ended on a good note. I can't tell what perspective you are coming from. Woewoe would initially indicate an obvious Republican bias, but the moment you say efficiency puts a reverse in that direction. Pure Republicans hate "efficiency" and love putting it down, referring to it as "running your cars on grass, wearing sweaters in winter"--you know, the standard flow of B.S. from people like Rush or Coulter.

But your knowledgeable statement at the end tells me you can see beyond that bull. Thank god :)

Neserk

Apr 25, 2004, 08:49 PM

Neserk

Apr 25, 2004, 09:03 PM

Okay:

Tongass National Forest is a Rainforest. The issue here is logging. website for more info www.alaskawild.org and www.akrain.org

oil and gas drilling is in the coastal plain of the National Wildlife REfuge. The Gwichi'in Tribe has taken a stand here. www.alaska.net/~gwichin

Here is what I was trying to recall from memory in the original post:

EPA estimates that improving our mpg by 3 save 5x the amount of oil that is under the Artic Refuge. The US consumes 25% of the world's oil but only produces 3%. "It is not possible to drill our way to energy security. Drilling in the Artic does not maek good enrogy senes, does not increase our national security, and should not be part of the discussion over any national energy plan."

The main issue here is that we need to look at other forms of energy instead of depending on oil which is a finite source. the bottom line is write to your senator's and congress people!

Write to your congress person, info at:

www.house.gov

email at www.house.gov/writerep/

blackfox

Apr 26, 2004, 09:26 AM

On a side note, I have read that Canada has vast oil reserves (top 5 in the world), but it is all located in sandy/shale rock locations, which are currently very expensive and inefficient to utilize...this holds much better prospects than ANWR in the near to mid-term future, as dwindling oil reserves will spur new and improved extracting technology...perhaps we will invade Canada soon :D

SlyHunter

Apr 26, 2004, 10:56 AM

blackfox

Apr 26, 2004, 11:22 AM

This implies we invaded Iraq for oil.
If we had done that they would not now be members of OPEC.
Of course, I was only joking...I wouldn't want to make any outlandish claims to stir up discussion on tangential topics w/o facts, would I? No, I wouldn't...sorry :D

Dippo

Apr 26, 2004, 12:54 PM

zimv20

Apr 26, 2004, 01:01 PM

Maybe if people didn't drive those gas guzzling SUVs and everyone bought hybrid cars, then we wouldn't need to do this.

bingo

skunk

Apr 26, 2004, 01:20 PM

Gotta...get....rid...of...the...Range...Rover. :( :(

Lyle

Apr 26, 2004, 02:22 PM

Gotta...get....rid...of...the...Range...Rover. :( :(Nah, just tell people it's your family's Range Rover, not yours. ;)

Frohickey

Apr 26, 2004, 02:33 PM

I spent about an hour this morning listening to a guy talk about how drilling oil in the Alaskan rainforest is a really, really bad idea.

Alaskan rainforest. Wow. I didn't know that caribou are tropical ;) :eek:

pooky

Apr 26, 2004, 03:00 PM

Alaskan rainforest. Wow. I didn't know that caribou are tropical ;) :eek:

Rainforests aren't necessarily tropical, they are simply forests with very high rainfall, partially because of climatic changes produced by the trees themselves. They make their own rain, so to speak. There's a very well known rainforest along the coast of the Pacific Northwest extending from the northernmost part of California on up.

Frohickey

Apr 26, 2004, 03:46 PM

Rainforests aren't necessarily tropical, they are simply forests with very high rainfall, partially because of climatic changes produced by the trees themselves. They make their own rain, so to speak. There's a very well known rainforest along the coast of the Pacific Northwest extending from the northernmost part of California on up.

ANWR is tundra... not rainforest

pseudobrit

Apr 26, 2004, 06:54 PM

ANWR is tundra... not rainforest

Did you know there's a large desert in Antarctica?

skunk

Apr 26, 2004, 07:16 PM

Did you know there's a large desert in Antarctica?
No. How come? Did the US invade?

Frohickey

Apr 26, 2004, 07:31 PM

Did you know there's a large desert in Antarctica?

Yep. Desert being the absence of liquid water (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=desert)... as opposed to dessert, which is the presence of Jello (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dessert) :D :p

Frohickey

Apr 26, 2004, 07:32 PM

No. How come? Did the US invade?

I think the penguins and seals are to blame for the desert in Antarctica. I think its your civic duty to club baby seals and eradicate the penguins. Do it for climate change!!!! :eek:

Desertrat

Apr 26, 2004, 08:03 PM

mac, SFAIK, the issue along Prince William Sound is clear-cutting on steep slopes. IMO, that's dumber'n hammered dirt. That leads to soil erosion which again is DHD, as it degrades both the land and the nearby waters. Fairly large-scale selective cutting can be done without erosion, but the operating costs are, naturally, higher. Clear-cutting in gently rolling country doesn't degrade the topsoil and after replanting, within a very few years the land appears "natural".

Mav451, I'm all over the political spectrum, depending on the issues. I'm an engineer (retired), so I'm most always "pro-efficiency". I'm also in the "cost-effective" camp, which occasionally bugs people on both sides of an argument.

:), 'Rat

SlyHunter

Apr 26, 2004, 08:09 PM

The way I understood it they would go to ANWAR during deepest winter using Ice roadways instead of concrete build their building and facilities on a small square of land and then use helicopter transport in and out from then on. Perhaps snow mobile to run pipe quality control checks. In otherwords very little disturbance of the area.

Desertrat

Apr 26, 2004, 08:34 PM

SH, a few bits and pieces: The pipeline must be insulated from the tundra, or it will sink. I'm dubious about "deepest winter", since if any motor quits running for more than a few moments, you don't restart it until it thaws out; oil solidifies extremely rapidly--as does diesel.

As far as the drilling, there would be few drill sites. From each, several wells would fan out at angles to the perpendicular; I don't doubt but what some will follow the relatively recent technology of "horizontal" drilling. (They drill down to some predetermined depth and then cause the bit to curve off toward the horizontal. Going cross-formation allows a greater percentage of primary recovery.)

The main justification for getting more oil for us, from such as ANWR or now-forbidden offshore areas, is a balance-of-power deal, or market leverage. It's much like the Costa Rican government's situation: Roughly 49% sorta conservative; 49% sorta liberal, and 2% communistic. That 2% can ally with either side, depending on the issue, and dramatically affect the way any legislation is written: Far beyond their actual voting-strength power.

This market leverage would allow us more influence in the market without begging or merely jawboning...

'Rat

mactastic

Apr 27, 2004, 09:08 AM

mac, SFAIK, the issue along Prince William Sound is clear-cutting on steep slopes.

Ah, I wasn't clear enough. Prince William Sound is forever linked with what ship?

Sayhey

Apr 27, 2004, 09:15 AM

Ah, I wasn't clear enough. Prince William Sound is forever linked with what ship?

The Exxon Valdez and a equally infamous drunken Ship's Captain. Am I right, mac?

mactastic

Apr 27, 2004, 09:25 AM

The Exxon Valdez and a equally infamous drunken Ship's Captain. Am I right, mac?

A gold star to Sayhey for correctly identifying the thrust of my question to 'Rat! :p

pooky

Apr 27, 2004, 10:08 AM

ANWR is tundra... not rainforest

Of course it is. My point is that there is a rainforest in Alaska. You seemed to be implying that rainforests have to be tropical, which isn't true.

Desertrat

Apr 27, 2004, 10:09 AM

Thanx. I'd disremembered some of the specifics. (It ain't just old age; I've always had names sorta wander in and out of my mind.)

But: Why was the solution to 1. Drunk seaman and 2. The saving of $150 in pilot's fees seen to be double hulls at umpteem gazillion extra dollars?

(My understanding at the time was that the pilot left the ship before it was really in open water because of the per-hour cost for the pilot and his return-transportation. Wonderful cost-saving for Exxon, right? :barf: )

Sorta separately and rambly: Compare the environmental impact of the Exxon Valdez, in a cold-water area, with impacts in warm water areas. One would think the east coast of the U.S. would be a barren wasteland from oil spills, given how many tankers were sunk by U-Boats in WW II. Same for the coast of the Gulf of Mexico.

Similar comparisons for on-land oil spills. I've seen many small-spill areas around wells in the wetter parts of Texas where a few years later a return visit showed no remaining effect. Yet, in a desert area of west Texas, spill effects are still a problem after some eighty years.

mactastic

Apr 27, 2004, 10:35 AM

Neserk

Apr 27, 2004, 04:38 PM

Maybe if people didn't drive those gas guzzling SUVs and everyone bought hybrid cars, then we wouldn't need to do this.

Whether you believe it or not, oil isn't going to last forever. Sure we could destroy the earth drilling for it, but in the end we would still run out!

2 very excellent points. Despite my husband's protest, our next car will be a hybrid (or if we can hold off long enough) a gasless or almost gasless car. Some hybrids get less gas mileage than my Honda :eek:

Neserk

Apr 27, 2004, 04:39 PM

Alaskan rainforest. Wow. I didn't know that caribou are tropical ;) :eek:

Not all rainforests are tropical ;) Rainforest and desert are defined by perciptation not temperature. Check out the links!

IJ Reilly

Apr 27, 2004, 07:00 PM

We just had a beach here fully excavated and replaced because of contamination from leaky fuel storage lines and tanks. It pretty well devestated a small beach community that relies on tourism for its existance. The town is just beginning to rebuild after having to close in 1998. Six years of closure can sure wreak havoc on your town. And we can thank Unocal for it.

Avila Beach -- that was a pretty exceptional situation, if not because of the level of contamination that was caused, then certainly by having the company that caused it held to account. Avila was lucky in a weird way -- in most cases, the responsible corporations aren't around anymore. If that had been the case, Avila Beach would have become a Superfund site, and nothing would happened for decades.

Desertrat

Apr 27, 2004, 10:06 PM

mac, the event you're referring to is an example of ever-tightening definitions of "hazardous materials". (I'm not arguing the case for/against the tightening.)

The additives in no-lead gasoline are extremely detrimental to groundwater. That's the "why" of the addition of gasoline to the "Oh, no!" list. Over-simplified, we traded a miniscule amount of lead for a larger amount of more directly poisonous materials such as MBTH (If I have that additive's acronym correct. MTHB? Some such thing.) We poison the ground to alleviate smog.

I guess it's the same for used motor oil. The "plain vanilla" oils of the past, with few additives, made pretty good fertilizer if not applied too heavily. For years, the Park Service collected all the drain-oil from garages around Colorado Springs, to spray on the road up Pike's Peak for dust control. Today's additives preclude that.

Given the way the law holds present owners responsible for what occurred on land in the past, banks won't lend money to buy real estate where once there was a gas station with underground tanks. If there is some problem and they have to repossess, they might become liable for soil replacement under some piece of downtown San Francisco or Manhattan. And that's why many of the newer Mom'n'Pop gas station operations have above-ground tanks.

wwworry

Apr 27, 2004, 10:27 PM

2 very excellent points. Despite my husband's protest, our next car will be a hybrid (or if we can hold off long enough) a gasless or almost gasless car. Some hybrids get less gas mileage than my Honda :eek:

If you're a do-it-yourselfer you might want to look into bio-diesel. It there is one thing America has a lot of it's old cooking grease.

Neserk

Apr 28, 2004, 12:16 AM

If you're a do-it-yourselfer you might want to look into bio-diesel. It there is one thing America has a lot of it's old cooking grease.
Competely unmechanical :( Is unmechanical a word?

wwworry

Apr 28, 2004, 06:29 AM

It's more like cooking than mechanics but it is messy from what I hear. Hybrids are probably better.

Thank god for Japan.

Frohickey

Apr 28, 2004, 04:38 PM

mac, the event you're referring to is an example of ever-tightening definitions of "hazardous materials". (I'm not arguing the case for/against the tightening.)

The additives in no-lead gasoline are extremely detrimental to groundwater. That's the "why" of the addition of gasoline to the "Oh, no!" list. Over-simplified, we traded a miniscule amount of lead for a larger amount of more directly poisonous materials such as MBTH (If I have that additive's acronym correct. MTHB? Some such thing.) We poison the ground to alleviate smog.

MTBE (http://www.epa.gov/mtbe/)

I don't think that MTBE is a substitute for the lead in gasoline. The lead in gasoline was there mainly to save the valve seats in engines. With newer technology of hardened valve seats, you don't need lead in the gasoline anymore. MTBE was put there for the artificial requirement of oxygenated gasoline. Supposedly, oxygenated gasoline would burn cleaner than not. Forget the fact that making oxygenates is not energy efficient (meaning you put more energy into making it than you would in burning it).

Neserk

Apr 28, 2004, 06:44 PM

It's more like cooking than mechanics but it is messy from what I hear. Hybrids are probably better.

Thank god for Japan.

I'm no better at cooking... I *finally* can handle raw meat without getting sick to my stomach, though...

Desertrat

Apr 28, 2004, 07:32 PM

Frohickey, sorry if I implied that MTBE (thanx) is a substitute for lead. But we took out an item of relatively minor harm as used, and put in an item that can easily be of major harm.

One of my major gripes at the way government does things is the lengthy time lag from the identifying of MTBE's harmfulness and the ending of the requirement that it be used. Unconscionable.

'Rat

Frohickey

Apr 28, 2004, 08:00 PM

I think that additives that reduce the energy content of gasoline in the hopes of a cleaner burn is a bad idea. You will end up using more gasoline in your driving, so the end result is the same. Detergents and other additives that clean the engine are a different story. There, the engine stays in its pristine state longer (as delivered by the factory) and emissions are closer to what the design engineers have observed.

Desertrat

Apr 28, 2004, 10:35 PM

It's all a matter of tradeoffs, when you're messing with fuel economy and emissions in the IC engine.

Higher compression, higher octane fuels and using the maximum non-detonating spark advance gives the best horsepower per pound of fuel, and thus the best fuel economy. Trouble is, all of that really raises the NOX level of the exhaust.

Hardened valve seats, stainless steel valves and computers have all been combined to get pretty good horsepower from low-compression engines. No-lead fuels and catalytic reactors have worked to reduce harmful exhaust emissions by over 90% from 1960s levels.

EPA rules say ya gotta have showroom-condition emissions for five years or more, without messing with the fuel system--and the car companies have proved they can do it. I find that pretty damned impressive.

'Rat

Frohickey

Apr 28, 2004, 11:19 PM

It's all a matter of tradeoffs, when you're messing with fuel economy and emissions in the IC engine.

EPA rules say ya gotta have showroom-condition emissions for five years or more, without messing with the fuel system--and the car companies have proved they can do it. I find that pretty damned impressive.

'Rat

Sounds like an slow gradual expansion of the EPA rules ought to fix things up, instead of the sudden increase in CAFE standards that a lot of enviro-nazis here want. If the EPA rules is showroom-condition emissions for 5 years right now, then make it 5.5 years, 18 months from now, and keep increasing the time frame every 18 months.

As for fuel efficiency and accident survivability, the customers can choose the fuel efficiency/accident survivability tradeoffs when they go sign the purchase agreement, and let the market deal with that.

Heck, a mandated showroom-condition emissions requirement is right alongside every car buyers dream of reliability and dependability. Imagine, a car that keeps its performance level years after you have bought it. Isn't that what you want in a car anyway?

pseudobrit

Apr 29, 2004, 02:48 AM

Sounds like an slow gradual expansion of the EPA rules ought to fix things up, instead of the sudden increase in CAFE standards that a lot of enviro-nazis here want. If the EPA rules is showroom-condition emissions for 5 years right now, then make it 5.5 years, 18 months from now, and keep increasing the time frame every 18 months.

You don't understand how it works. It's not up to the manufacturer to ensure that the car is clean for five years, it's up to the owner. If my car's out of warranty and fails an emissions test, I have to pay for the necessary repairs to bring it to like-new levels.

Of course, in my case, I'm exempt from such testing. My fuel efficient and sturdy German hatchback gets 50 mpg while tipping the scales at a 3000 lbs and surrounds me with solid steel and six airbags, while using a diesel engine that doesn't need emissions testing.

No tradeoffs required.

mactastic

Apr 29, 2004, 08:14 AM

enviro-nazis

Knock that BS off Frohickey. :mad:

I thought we established that calling people Nazis was unacceptable.

Desertrat

Apr 29, 2004, 09:03 AM

So, mac, what label do you suggest for the emotionally-driven, technically ignorant types who spray paint and burn property in the name of "Save the Environment"?

Pseudobrit, re-read your owner's manual. Mine sez the emissions warranty is good for seven years. I think seven years is longer than the five I mentioned? I don't have to pay for anything.

I haven't seen many 55mpg critters that'll haul a couple of five-foot tall backhoe tires, or pull a trailer with a few tons of payload. :) Not everybody can get away with driving the little-bitties.

'Rat

mactastic

Apr 29, 2004, 09:16 AM

So, mac, what label do you suggest for the emotionally-driven, technically ignorant types who spray paint and burn property in the name of "Save the Environment"?

I'm sure you're smart enough to think of one. Aren't you?

And lest you forget, Frohickey said those 'enviro-nazis here. Do you have any evidence that any of those of us on the left here have either participated in or endorsed vandalism in the name of the environment? Do you think I am 'emotionally-driven, technically ignorant types who spray paint and burn property in the name of "Save the Environment" '?

Desertrat

Apr 29, 2004, 12:59 PM

Nope, haven't seen any posts that jangled my nerves as to environmental stuff. I've seen some desires whose satisfactions might lead to serious unemployment, but that's really a causal-relationship issue.

No sho-nuff Double-E types, so far.

:), 'Rat

mactastic

Apr 29, 2004, 02:25 PM

Sounds like an slow gradual expansion of the EPA rules ought to fix things up, instead of the sudden increase in CAFE standards that a lot of enviro-nazis here want. If the EPA rules is showroom-condition emissions for 5 years right now, then make it 5.5 years, 18 months from now, and keep increasing the time frame every 18 months.

As for fuel efficiency and accident survivability, the customers can choose the fuel efficiency/accident survivability tradeoffs when they go sign the purchase agreement, and let the market deal with that.

Heck, a mandated showroom-condition emissions requirement is right alongside every car buyers dream of reliability and dependability. Imagine, a car that keeps its performance level years after you have bought it. Isn't that what you want in a car anyway?

Hmm, so you're for supporting terrorists and their state sponsors by appeasing them with money for oil? :eek: :eek: :eek:

And you do realize that there is a difference between having a car that can maintain its emmision limit for a set amount of time, and a lowering of the emmissions that it puts out to start with?

Frohickey

Apr 29, 2004, 04:49 PM

Knock that BS off Frohickey. :mad:

I thought we established that calling people Nazis was unacceptable.

Enviro-loonies... maybe. Only, loonies do not seek to impose their will on others. Enviro-tyrants? You should ask the people that are sitting on land that they cannot build their retirement dream home because of all the red tape put in front of them by environmentalists.

Besides, I thought that its personal attacks that was unacceptable.

Frohickey

Apr 29, 2004, 04:54 PM

Hmm, so you're for supporting terrorists and their state sponsors by appeasing them with money for oil? :eek: :eek: :eek:

And you do realize that there is a difference between having a car that can maintain its emmision limit for a set amount of time, and a lowering of the emmissions that it puts out to start with?

Now that is a big leap from espousing a gradual increase in the length of time emissions equipment are to remain showroom-level performance to supporting terrorists.

As I said in the post, having a slow and gradual increase in the length of time new cars maintain their showroom-level performance in emissions would likely fix the pollution aspect, as well as something that manufacturers would strive for, and customers would like.

Maybe, in so doing, we get a lengthening of the period in which cars perform in acceleration, reliability, etc. That would be something that customers would want anyway, and manufacturers would like to provide. (Unless you are Microsoft who likes planned obsolesence in order to keep selling OS upgrades.)

mactastic

Apr 29, 2004, 04:54 PM

Besides, I thought that its personal attacks that was unacceptable.

It is. You stated that there are environmental nazis here in this forum. If that's not a personal attack it's damn close.

mactastic

Apr 29, 2004, 04:56 PM

Now that is a big leap from espousing a gradual increase in the length of time emissions equipment are to remain showroom-level performance to supporting terrorists.

I know. ;)

Guess who's posting style I'm emulating... :eek: :eek: :eek:

Rower_CPU

Apr 29, 2004, 05:23 PM

...
Besides, I thought that its personal attacks that was unacceptable.

Read the fine rules (http://forums.macrumors.com/announcement.php?s=&forumid=4)
Instantly Bannable offenses

In general, we try to give some warnings, but these are one-time bannable offenses. You will not get a warning.

1) Direct personal insult. ie "You are an idiot." and all the variations. Why? Because this isn't grade school. People should be able to not insult people. And the only purpose of a post like this is to incite other people.

There are a lot of other non-direct-personal insults that won't necessary get you banned instantly, such as... "that is an idiotic comment". Depending on the context/nature, they may get edited. Bottom line -- don't try to piss off others.

...

Things Not to Do

These aren't instantly bannable - but will get you edited and or warned.

3) "Trolling" - this is more of a pattern, and will get you banned... but can be a subjective call. Basically, don't try to pick fights.

Consider this another warning.

Frohickey

Apr 29, 2004, 06:07 PM

So, what would be acceptable term for people that seek to impose their will on applicable use of land and property owned by others, sometimes to the point of using government as a big stick to beat property owners with. This type of behavior runs the gamut of using city councils or county board of supervisors to mandate what types of trees and how many should be placed in a private golf course, to environmental impact reports that retirees have to go through in order to build their retirement dream home around Lake Tahoe. There are plenty of other abuses of power, you just have to look around.

(I've been reading some land use website, and eminent domain abuses recently, so that is at the top of my peeves right now.)

zimv20

Apr 29, 2004, 06:12 PM

So, what would be acceptable term for people that seek to impose their will on applicable use of land and property owned by others, sometimes to the point of using government as a big stick to beat property owners with.
that's directly dependent on what those people want. unlike you, i don't think owned land can be used any way the owner sees fit. any activities/changes must be in accordance w/ the zoning.

what specific things are you referring to?

Frohickey

Apr 29, 2004, 07:38 PM

that's directly dependent on what those people want. unlike you, i don't think owned land can be used any way the owner sees fit. any activities/changes must be in accordance w/ the zoning.

what specific things are you referring to?

Why is land and what the owners want to do with it, any different from your PowerMac G5, and what the owners of the PowerMac G5 want to do with it?

zimv20

Apr 29, 2004, 08:04 PM

Why is land and what the owners want to do with it, any different from your PowerMac G5, and what the owners of the PowerMac G5 want to do with it?
that's not a real comparison. "land" is more than a single thing, it represents the freedom to do anything (assuming activities must take place in a space).

know what i mean? i own a 25'x125' lot, on which i am "free" to:
1. burn hazardous materials
2. construct a 10 story building
3. put up a pornographic billboard
4. bury nuclear waste
5. perform surgeries
6. broadcast a pirate radio signal
7. shoot people walking by

clearly, i am not free to do some or any of these things (some illegal, some violate zoning laws). and they have less to do w/ the land and more to do w/ how they affect my neighbors.

there's an abstraction to "land" that doesn't apply to computers.

mactastic

Apr 29, 2004, 08:39 PM

Hehe... go ahead, overturn Euclid v Ambler (http://www.public.iastate.edu/~f2003.c_r_p.492/casebriefs/vbmheuclid.htm) if you can. It's pretty settled law that the police power extends to protecting the health, saftey, and welfare of the population at large.

Desertrat

Apr 29, 2004, 09:13 PM

AS long as we've wandered off into land use, hokay: GENERALLY, if whatever you want to do doesn't harm your neighbor, his property or his property values, you should be pretty much free to do what you want. Zoning is an effort to impose responsibility upon people so their actions (industrial plant, hog farms, etc.) don't harm others.

zim, why should you not perform outpatient surgery at your home? (Why should zoning preclude such an activity?)

'Rat

mactastic

Apr 29, 2004, 09:22 PM

zim, why should you not perform outpatient surgery at your home? (Why should zoning preclude such an activity?)

'Rat

Parking issues for one.

ADA compliance for another. Most homes aren't.

Desertrat

Apr 29, 2004, 09:42 PM

mactastic

Apr 29, 2004, 09:52 PM

Yeah, mac, but parking in many residential areas in many of the smaller cities is easiest during office hours. And, of course, the old "By Appointment" can deal with the flow-through of traffic.

The ADA requirements are easily dealt with by some carpentry and some plumbing. No biggie.

Hey, I don't make the rules I'm just telling 'em to you since you asked! I'd like to see cities adopt a more flexible approach to total numbers for parking that take into account the usage by time periods. Churches only tend to fill their parking lots occasionally, othewise those lots sit idle most of the time, yet they have to be big to meet peak capacity. I'd like to see more mixed-use projects in city cores, and even out into suburbia. But then again, I'd also like to see a tax structure that gave housing an even footing against businesses. If an auto mall is a more lucrative prospect for a city than a housing development and that city has a choice (ie both want to build there) guess which one's gonna get picked? But that's not bloody likely either.

Now, the permitting process can be a raving bitch. Dr. Jerry Pournelle's story of his efforts to build a small, screened back porch onto his house in LA would be hlarious were it not so tragic. To build a porch costing around $2,000 in materials and labor took him over a year's wandering throu gh the city's red tape and some $4,000 in fees. However, at the time he told the story, he still hadn't gotten the final "Go ahead!"

Conversely, I needed no permits, paid no fees to build my own residence in its entirety. Just one more reason to like the laws pertaining to rural Texas.

'Rat

A lot of the things we talk about regarding city planning, mass transit, etc just aren't going to apply to you 'Rat. You can't use yourself as an example of how the cities should work.

And you don't need to tell me about permiting woes. I'm 3 months behind suddenly on an apartment complex that I have designed and engineered sitting on my desk, and today I find out the guy who was supposed to pull the conditional use permit with the city didn't do it. Now I have to go through the whole public notice process and a bunch of other hoops. Bummer of a day.

zimv20

Apr 29, 2004, 10:29 PM

zim, why should you not perform outpatient surgery at your home?
because i'm not a doctor. funny timing -- after i made my previous post, a friend came over with the movie "Dirty Pretty Things." and now we're discussing illegal surgery...

(Why should zoning preclude such an activity?)

it's all about managing expectations. i bought a house on a quiet, tree-lined street. most of the buildings on my block are single family, there's a couple two-flats and one (two lot, two story) four-flat. i have an expectation that the street won't radically change.

putting in a business or replacing a single family home w/ a 4-story apt. building would ruin the street, not to mention probably harm my property value. happily, for that to occur, the neighbors would have to approve a zoning variance. i like having a say in the matter.

conversely, if i were a doctor and wanted to open a practice, i'd head to the nearest commercial street (1/2 block away) and rent a space there, already zoned for such things.

when considering the density of cities (i can lean out my dining room window and hand something to my neighbor standing on her porch), the protections offered by zoning are very important to quality of life.

SlyHunter

Apr 29, 2004, 10:31 PM

because i'm not a doctor. funny timing -- after i made my previous post, a friend came over with the movie "Dirty Pretty Things." and now we're discussing illegal surgery...

it's all about managing expectations. i bought a house on a quiet, tree-lined street. most of the buildings on my block are single family, there's a couple two-flats and one (two lot, two story) four-flat. i have an expectation that the street won't radically change.

putting in a business or replacing a single family home w/ a 4-story apt. building would ruin the street, not to mention probably harm my property value. happily, for that to occur, the neighbors would have to approve a zoning variance. i like having a say in the matter.

conversely, if i were a doctor and wanted to open a practice, i'd head to the nearest commercial street (1/2 block away) and rent a space there, already zoned for such things.

when considering the density of cities (i can lean out my dining room window and hand something to my neighbor standing on her porch), the protections offered by zoning are very important to quality of life.
I moved into a condo full of adults a nice and quiet communitee.
Last month three families moved into condo's behind me now I got to listen to the racket of kids playing and squabling behind me 10 - 20 of em all day while I'm trying to get work done. My expectations weren't protected. Time to move again :(

pseudobrit

Apr 29, 2004, 10:55 PM

conversely, if i were a doctor and wanted to open a practice, i'd head to the nearest commercial street (1/2 block away) and rent a space there, already zoned for such things.

In my county, outpatient providers must be within a set range of a major hospital ER and have a special ambulance contract with said hospital.

This clause has been used to successfully stop the opening of an abortion clinic in my county; the hospitals were politically influenced to deny ambulance service in case of complications.

Awimoway

Apr 30, 2004, 01:17 AM

I spent about an hour this morning listening to a guy talk about how drilling oil in the Alaskan rainforest is a really, really bad idea.

This is what hit me most profoundly: Drilling would reduce our dependence on foreign oil from 70% to 66%. And if I understood correctly that would only last for about 10 years.

OTOH, if we increase the mpg on our vehicles by 3mpg (yes, 3mpg) we would save 5x that much need for oil...

Who was this guy? Can he be trusted? It sounds like he has an agenda and is slanting the numbers because those numbers sound really low. I say this as someone who considers himself to be pretty damn liberal and pro-environment, but I think America's priority number one right now is reducing terrorism (the real, Al Qaeda kind, not the imagined Iraqi kind), and that means we need to sever ties with the major supporter of terrorism: Saudi Arabia. Ending our dependance on Arab oil is a helluva a lot more important to me right now than the quality of life of a few polar bears. I would support drilling in ANWAR if the environmental protections were stringent enough AND if it would significantly reduce our dependance on Arab oil. But if this guy's numbers can be trusted, I don't think it's worth it.

(FWIW, I also support much more aggressive incentives and even mandates to research and implement alternative, eco-friendly fuel sources and improved efficiency. I do consider myself an environmentalist. But terrorism is a more immediate danger right now).

zimv20

Apr 30, 2004, 01:42 AM

Ending our dependance on Arab oil is a helluva a lot more important to me right now than the quality of life of a few polar bears.
i agree w/ the first part and wish carter's energy initiative hadn't been dismantled. they might have paid off by now.

anyway, i've not seen any study which indicates drilling in the ANWR would make much of a dent in our oil demand. and the biggest problem, imo, is that demand. that's what we've got to work on, both through heavy investment in renewable energies and drastic changes in automobile mileage.

this is why SUVs (remember, 'rat, i'm a city boy, and they're rampant here in chicago) make me so ****ing sick to my stomach.

SlyHunter

Apr 30, 2004, 01:55 AM

I know I'm suppose to like SUV's after all people have the right to choose their own car. I'm sick and tired of seeing vehicles taking up 2 spaces in a parking lot simply because its either too big to fit in the space or the driver doesn't know how to drive. I'm sick and tired of driving downtown Cocoa Village and having idiots drive down the middle of the road instead of staying in one of the two lanes. If the vehicle your driving is too large for you to stay in your lane or too large for you to properly park it then maybe you should look into a smaller vehicle.

Frohickey

Apr 30, 2004, 12:38 PM

Ending our dependance on Arab oil is a helluva a lot more important to me right now than the quality of life of a few polar bears.

I do consider myself an environmentalist. But terrorism is a more immediate danger right now).

No polar bears. Plenty of caribou though. I hear caribou jerky is tasty. :D :D :D

I consider myself a conservationist. I seek a balance between man's use of resources, and the need to maintain ecological health and diversity.

mactastic

Apr 30, 2004, 12:39 PM

I consider myself a conservationist. I seek a balance between man's use of resources, and the need to maintain ecological health and diversity.

What do ya know! Me too. Although I suspect our definitions of balance differ greatly. :eek: :D :cool:

Frohickey

Apr 30, 2004, 12:40 PM

Frohickey

Apr 30, 2004, 12:57 PM

What do ya know! Me too. Although I suspect our definitions of balance differ greatly. :eek: :D :cool:

There are various degrees.

Conservationists seek a balance. We are like the businesspeople/ranchers/famers that turn into hunters and fishermen on the weekends. (Some are hikers and offroad bicyclists too.)

Rabid preservationists/environmentalists seek another kind of 'balance'. They are like the college students and treesitters that get money from mommy or from environmentalist group donations, and they want NO RESOURCE USE at all. In fact, some of them want fire roads closed and not maintained because it might encourage use by humans. :eek:

I get incensed when I see environmental groups such as Nature Conservancy and others buy up private lands, and donate them to the federal or state governments. What was once private land that was incurring property taxes, now ended up being public lands that do not contribute to the tax revenue base, and this leads to a desire to increase property tax rates on houses and businesses to offset the loss.

If anything, the Nature Conservancy and others should try and convince federal and state governments to sell public lands to private groups. They can then buy these lands, pay property taxes, and manage the lands properly. There are lots of neglected public lands, neglected to the point where they are asking for help in identifying where non-native species of plant have started killing off native species. That is not help, that is just asking for notice. Help would be if they were eradicating the non-native species. Can you imagine what the costs to taxpayers would be if the purpose was to eradicate the non-native species?

A private group can manage their land, eradicating non-native invasive species, without affecting the tax revenue base. If the tax schedule is right, the private group could actually improve the land, allow some human use, and maybe even turn a profit. Heck, maybe even provide increased employment! Private parkgrounds keepers get paid to you know. ;)

Frohickey

Apr 30, 2004, 01:02 PM

this is why SUVs (remember, 'rat, i'm a city boy, and they're rampant here in chicago) make me so ****ing sick to my stomach.

Are you ****ing sick to your stomach of the SUV themselves, or are you ****ing sick to your stomach of the FREEDOM people have to choose their vehicles?

I enjoy and celebrate that people have, and are exercising the freedom to purchase their choice of vehicles.

mactastic

Apr 30, 2004, 01:04 PM

They can then buy these lands, pay property taxes, and manage the lands properly.

That's right, in the Libertarian wet dream everyone acts responsibly without prodding from the government. But that's why Libertarianism would fail for the same reasons Communism did. It relys on the goodness of human nature, and we've all seen how well that works.

zimv20

Apr 30, 2004, 01:23 PM

Are you ****ing sick to your stomach of the SUV themselves, or are you ****ing sick to your stomach of the FREEDOM people have to choose their vehicles?

i love freedom of choice. w/ that choice comes responsibility. jack up gas to $10/gallon and i'm happy to let people drive whatever they want.

mactastic

Apr 30, 2004, 01:32 PM

jack up gas to $10/gallon and i'm happy to let people drive whatever they want.

You mean 'remove the distortion in the market'? :D

Desertrat

Apr 30, 2004, 01:38 PM

As long as we're wishing and opining, I wish there were more comments in the commonly-read or viewed media about the amount of real progress being made in the world of alternatives such as fuel cells. The greater efficiency of these would lead to about a 20% or greater reduction in our need for petroleum. For now, I support these over hybrids due to the better numbers insofar as costs (As near as I can tell).

Opinion? I think the larger SUVs are dumb from an investment standpoint. A frivolous waste of money for most buyers. Expensive O&M for all owners. Of course, I've always griped against the big and heavy stuff: "Bargemobiles," sez I!

Problem: If we got rid of most of the SUVs, the cost of the bottom-end "affordable" cars would increase by around 20% to 25%.

'Rat

blackfox

Apr 30, 2004, 01:43 PM

That's right, in the Libertarian wet dream everyone acts responsibly without prodding from the government. But that's why Libertarianism would fail for the same reasons Communism did. It relys on the goodness of human nature, and we've all seen how well that works.
I know this is taking the thread off on a tangent, and I apologize...but I had to comment on the fact that while I believe what you wrote to be true, mactastic, it also explains why a liberal, isolationist foreign policy does not work either...I firmly believe it is the United States' responsibility as a superpower to use that power to mitigate the wickedness of human nature, by spreading the values of an enlightened society (no snickering...)responsibly, and in some cases, to do this effectively means playing dirty pool...that said, currently that is not being done (re: responsibly)...and lest you think I am a US cheerleader, I think the US will not remain the superpower forever, and advocate this policy for any country in the same position...everyone wants stability so that they can get on with the rest of their lives...sorry for the hijack...

mactastic

Apr 30, 2004, 01:53 PM

a liberal, isolationist foreign policy does not work either...

I thought conservatives tend to be more isolationist than liberals? However I do agree with your point about an extreme liberal position being untenable as well.

Desertrat

Apr 30, 2004, 02:45 PM

blackfox, we do tend to wander about in these threads. :)

mac, a point to ponder: To play GloboRoboCop means expansion of the military, doesn't it? How else to hope for success? So, isn't isolationism--or some degree of it--sort of a requisite for justifying a minimal amount of money for the military? Isn't less money for war rather a Liberal position? Shouldn't Liberals, then, be rather more in favor of a position of isolationism than they seem to be? :)

So if we didn't use up so much petroleum in military training, and didn't fly Lear jets around with a candidate's hairdresser :D, we wouldn't be so dependent on foreign sources for our oil.

'Rat

mactastic

Apr 30, 2004, 02:51 PM

blackfox, we do tend to wander about in these threads. :)

mac, a point to ponder: To play GloboRoboCop means expansion of the military, doesn't it? How else to hope for success? So, isn't isolationism--or some degree of it--sort of a requisite for justifying a minimal amount of money for the military? Isn't less money for war rather a Liberal position? Shouldn't Liberals, then, be rather more in favor of a position of isolationism than they seem to be? :)

So wait, are you saying conservatives are for a larger government? ;)

A point for you to ponder 'Rat: Members of which major political party advocate isolationism more than the other?

So if we didn't use up so much petroleum in military training, and didn't fly Lear jets around with a candidate's hairdresser :D, we wouldn't be so dependent on foreign sources for our oil.

A drop in the bucket 'Rat.

blackfox

Apr 30, 2004, 03:05 PM

So wait, are you saying conservatives are for a larger government? ;)

Both Liberals and Conservatives are...they just differ on which parts...conservatives generally are for the expansion of the military and security sectors, whilst liberals generally advocate the expansion of a social safety-net and regulatory apparatus...ironically, both are trying to protect the populace, in their own ways...

A point for you to ponder 'Rat: Members of which major political party advocate isolationism more than the other?

Again this can be argued both ways...conservatives tend to be more 'hawkish' and support military intervention, but tend to loath economic assistance programs over seas...liberals tend to be the opposite...(this is obviously generalizing)

Frohickey

Apr 30, 2004, 03:05 PM

mactastic

Apr 30, 2004, 03:09 PM

You mean to tell me that the Nature Conservancy or the Sierra Club cannot be trusted to manage the lands that they purchase properly? :eek:

You've said so yourself many times.

blackfox

Apr 30, 2004, 03:18 PM

You mean to tell me that the Nature Conservancy or the Sierra Club cannot be trusted to manage the lands that they purchase properly? :eek:
I think they generally can...the point is that you often must deal with the lowest common denominator...those who would not manage effectively because of short-sighted policy, greed or selfish prioritizing...there are many corporate interests that fall in that category...after all, their overriding motive is profit...and if responsible management cuts into the bottom line, then it is dropped...that is why there is some modicum of regulatory oversight...yes, it hamstrings the responsible ones, but reigns-in the irresponsible ones...generally a good compromise...

SlyHunter

Apr 30, 2004, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by SlyHunter
I know I'm suppose to like SUV's after all people have the right to choose their own car. I'm sick and tired of seeing vehicles taking up 2 spaces in a parking lot simply because its either too big to fit in the space or the driver doesn't know how to drive. I'm sick and tired of driving downtown Cocoa Village and having idiots drive down the middle of the road instead of staying in one of the two lanes. If the vehicle your driving is too large for you to stay in your lane or too large for you to properly park it then maybe you should look into a smaller vehicle.

I think what you are effectively saying is that if you are a buttheaded driver that can't stay in your own lane and park between two painted lines in the parking lot, that you ought to go take a long walk at a short pier.
also don't buy a car bigger than you are capable of handling within the same rules of the road everyone else has to abide by.

SlyHunter

Apr 30, 2004, 05:23 PM

Desertrat

Apr 30, 2004, 05:40 PM

SlyHunter

Apr 30, 2004, 06:04 PM

Sly, you remember the 10% "Luxury Tax"? This was gonna "get" those rich folks and help the federal budget.

Sales of yachts and Rolls Royce-type cars went down the tubes. Salesmen laid off; manufacturing operations shut down...I dunno why legislators think rich folks are stoopid. Sheesh! I wonder why it's an easy sell for "just folks" to buy into the idea, as well. If you want to hurt the working class, tell them you're doing good with class warfare against "The Rich".

'Rat
I did not mean to imply to enact an additional tax. My mother use to make blinds for a living she was paid a wage for doing so. That was my point. She had a job because people were rich enough to think spending 300 - 2500 per window on blinds was a good decision.

Frohickey

Apr 30, 2004, 07:28 PM

You've said so yourself many times.

I have? I don't think so. What I have said is that the environmentalist groups should not presume that others cannot be trusted to manage their own lands.

Besides, even if the Nature Conservancy or the Sierra Club cannot manage their privately owned lands properly, *I* would not presume to tell them what they should and should not do.

skunk

Apr 30, 2004, 07:31 PM

I have? I don't think so. What I have said is that the environmentalist groups should not presume that others cannot be trusted to manage their own lands.
To trust people to do things right is not enough. Greed will out.

Neserk

Apr 30, 2004, 07:33 PM

I have? I don't think so. What I have said is that the environmentalist groups should not presume that others cannot be trusted to manage their own lands.

Besides, even if the Nature Conservancy or the Sierra Club cannot manage their privately owned lands properly, *I* would not presume to tell them what they should and should not do.

Why? Because they have done such a bang up job so far? The reality is we can't afford for them to make the mistakes by choice or accident... Alaskan wilderness is like virginity. Once it is gone it is gone you can't get it back...

zimv20

Apr 30, 2004, 08:24 PM

even if the Nature Conservancy or the Sierra Club cannot manage their privately owned lands properly, *I* would not presume to tell them what they should and should not do.
i forget -- are you pro-choice?

Frohickey

Apr 30, 2004, 08:42 PM

i forget -- are you pro-choice?

I am pro-choice. I'm also anti-tax.

Put the two together, and I am against taxpayer subsidies of abortion. I am for the private financing of abortion clinics and equipment.

If government is going to force me, as a taxpayer, to subsidize abortion, then I think that government should also lure me to be the impregnator of fertile women. :eek: ;) :p

Since I do not see any taxpayer funded baby-mills and abortion doctor training material/patients...

I know, this is a ghastly scenario, but its also a very improbable scenario, except for the private financing of abortion clinics and equipment. That is entirely probable.

Besides, if my tax dollars were not used to fund abortions, I might have enough money to take female acquaintances out for a fun evening of dinner, movie, and dancing... and maybe something else afterwards. :D :D :D

Frohickey

Apr 30, 2004, 08:45 PM

To trust people to do things right is not enough. Greed will out.

Despots, tyrants and dictators share that same exact sentiment. People should not be trusted to do the right thing.

Care to revise your statement? ;)

zimv20

Apr 30, 2004, 10:34 PM

I am pro-choice.
just checking to make sure your property hands-off policy was consistent w/ your abortion one.

pseudobrit

May 1, 2004, 01:15 AM

Besides, if my tax dollars were not used to fund abortions, I might have enough money to take female acquaintances out for a fun evening of dinner, movie, and dancing... and maybe something else afterwards. :D :D :D

What do you think more of your tax dollars go toward?

Social medicine programs? Or military excess?

SlyHunter

May 1, 2004, 01:29 AM

What do you think more of your tax dollars go toward?

Social medicine programs? Or military excess?
US government should only collect enough in taxes to run the government, pay for military defense, handle international imigration and trade, and those support items that actually need to be handled by a national government like perhaps FDA. Anything else like wellfare, or education should be paid for on the state level and I'll move to the state that doesn't steal my money to give to someone else.

Neserk

May 1, 2004, 10:51 AM

. Anything else like wellfare, or education should be paid for on the state level and I'll move to the state that doesn't steal my money to give to someone else.

Tell that to Bush. He is intent on controlling every aspect of education Literally dictating what teachers actually say and what questions they ask in the Language Arts portion of othe day. He is even controlling the length of time a teacher much teach language arts.

Check out the Reading First programs in public schools.

SlyHunter

May 1, 2004, 11:31 AM

Tell that to Bush. He is intent on controlling every aspect of education Literally dictating what teachers actually say and what questions they ask in the Language Arts portion of othe day. He is even controlling the length of time a teacher much teach language arts.

Check out the Reading First programs in public schools.
Thats a bit too far tho I think testing to insure teachers are doing their jobs and students know what they are suppose to know for their level is a good thing.

mactastic

May 1, 2004, 01:13 PM

Thats a bit too far tho I think testing to insure teachers are doing their jobs and students know what they are suppose to know for their level is a good thing.

So do you want these tests to take place on the national level, or the state level? I'm sure you know what level Dubya wants them on.

SlyHunter

May 1, 2004, 01:28 PM

So do you want these tests to take place on the national level, or the state level? I'm sure you know what level Dubya wants them on.
I think we should have national standards at how educated we as a nation are for such things help us compete in the world marketplace, military, and jobs. However the States should be free to pay for it how they choose to pay for it as well as to decide on how to meet those standards.

Neserk

May 1, 2004, 01:51 PM

Thats a bit too far

Please tell that to Bush.

tho I think testing to insure teachers are doing their jobs and students know what they are suppose to know for their level is a good thing.

The only thing testing shows is how well the students take the test.

The tests are not intended to show if the teacher taught what s/he was suppose to. Therefore using them in an attempt to show that is an invalid use of the test.

If you switched the teachers from a "low performing" school with teachers from a "high performing" school what you would find is that the students *still* got the same test scores. That has already been demonstrated.

We need the government to get their dirty little hands out of the classrooms. They have no clue what they are doing. And in the end the children suffer.

Neserk

May 1, 2004, 01:52 PM

I think we should have national standards

I agree. And the same content area should be taught at the same grade level regardless of where you live.

However the States should be free to pay for it how they choose to pay for it as well as to decide on how to meet those standards.

I also agree. And the only way to return to this is to get Bush and his "no child left behind act" out of here. The act won't go until Bush does.

Dont Hurt Me

May 1, 2004, 02:08 PM

Funny how Bush uses titles for programs that are opposite for what they do. no child left behind left behind children schools and teachers. patriot act doing everything to crush the individuals rights liberties and freedoms. clean air initiative- made sure big companies could continue polluting with no regard to the enviroment. Lies,Lies and more Lies.

zimv20

May 1, 2004, 02:10 PM

The only thing testing shows is how well the students take the test.

a friend of mine is taking a Kaplan class to help her take the GMAT. she showed me the section where they lay out some analysis of the GMAT answer histogram. e.g. answer is usually not (a), most math answers are (c) & (d), etc.

now that's learning!

Neserk

May 1, 2004, 02:22 PM

Funny how Bush uses titles for programs that are opposite for what they do. no child left behind left behind children schools and teachers. .

One of the, umm, nicknames: No Child Left a Dime.

Neserk

May 1, 2004, 02:23 PM

a friend of mine is taking a Kaplan class to help her take the GMAT. she showed me the section where they lay out some analysis of the GMAT answer histogram. e.g. answer is usually not (a), most math answers are (c) & (d), etc.

now that's learning!

Yup. Whenever I've taken a Standardized test if I have no clue I answer C. The important thing is that if you always answer the same letter when you don't have a clue ;)

Awimoway

May 1, 2004, 06:15 PM

a friend of mine is taking a Kaplan class to help her take the GMAT. she showed me the section where they lay out some analysis of the GMAT answer histogram. e.g. answer is usually not (a), most math answers are (c) & (d), etc.

now that's learning!

Standardized testing results in everyone being forced to "teach to the test." The whole year is dominated by an arbitrary set of requirements that may or may not be in the best interest of the students. Teaching becomes inflexible and not tailored to the students' actual needs.

Also, when such requirements are set at the national level, states' rights are trampled all over. States' rights issues don't interest/concern me much, but I find it ironic that so many conservatives are now favoring national testing. Total hypocrisy.

Anyway, my main complaint about the way we in America deal with education, politically, is that we are hell bent on the assumption that most or all teachers are incompetent and cannot be trusted to teach anyone anything. They are essentially punished with an unending string of regulations, evaluations, and tests (not just tests for the students, but for the teachers as well--very expensive ones they have to pay for themselves). Morale among teachers is at an all-time low.

The problem with education in America is not the public servants who get paid less than they're worth to teach our children. I would even submit that the chief problem isn't lack of funding (although that's the second biggest problem). The biggest problem is the American home. It's the parents who are using television to babysit their children, who don't read with their kids, who don't take them to museums, who don't go to parent-teacher conferences and take an interest in their children's education, and who never follow up with them to make sure they are doing their homework and learning.

SlyHunter

May 1, 2004, 06:25 PM

Problem with our education system is our teachers are spending too much time brain washing their students into being "well rounded individuals" ie left wing liberals and not enough time teaching them how to survive in the real world and become someone who can market themselves and be worth hiring.

2 year degree college requires crap like social scient behavioral science humanities natural science GARBAGE. None of this helps you get a job be a productive member of a work force and make money. These student can become "well rounded" individuals outside of class in class they need to learn work related skills.

Awimoway

May 1, 2004, 06:38 PM

Problem with our education system is our teachers are spending too much time brain washing their students into being "well rounded individuals" ie left wing liberals and not enough time teaching them how to survive in the real world and become someone who can market themselves and be worth hiring.

You're right. Teachers are all commie s***s. Anyone who isn't a real American, who isn't trying to make as much money as possible selling lies and defective products is not to be trusted. I guess we should just close all the schools since they're so useless. :rolleyes:

Desertrat

May 1, 2004, 07:16 PM

IMO, the problem with responsible management for "multiple use" of public lands is that you fall back onto "The Law of the Commons": That which belongs to everybody belongs to nobody, so there is no real incentive to be righteous. Thus some would readily despoil; others fight the responsibility-battle or attempt to do so in the face of competing interests. And we're back to Cherchez le moolah.

The same problem holds for many other Libertarian ideas. I'm in accord, from a philosophical standpoint, but IMO there is a "responsibility quotient" that's about the same as IQ: There's a bell curve, and half of all people are below average.

The overall arena of environmental protection is one of the few where I favor a federal system of mandated ideals. Even there, of course, we have competing interests among all involved parties.

One good thing about the U.S. penchant for public squabbles is that while no one group will ever be totally satisfied, all groups get at least part of what they want. Our expanding population needs some of those things available only in undeveloped lands. Responsibility itsownself sez you get very picky and selective about where and how any "explotation" is done.

'Rat

zimv20

May 1, 2004, 07:18 PM

You're right. Teachers are all commie s***s. Anyone who isn't a real American, who isn't trying to make as much money as possible selling lies and defective products is not to be trusted. I guess we should just close all the schools since they're so useless. :rolleyes:
damn. i'll have to repair my sarcasm meter now.

Neserk

May 1, 2004, 07:21 PM

Standardized testing results in everyone being forced to "teach to the test." The whole year is dominated by an arbitrary set of requirements that may or may not be in the best interest of the students. Teaching becomes inflexible and not tailored to the students' actual needs.

Tell me about it! We are literally forced to teach to the test. Including giving tests that mimic the CAT 6 and the other test (the name currently escapes me).

Also, when such requirements are set at the national level, states' rights are trampled all over. States' rights issues don't interest/concern me much, but I find it ironic that so many conservatives are now favoring national testing. Total hypocrisy.

Indeed. Unless you look at the underlying factor. This is how it works: We test children and "proove" that Public Education sucks. That allows us to get vouchers to send our children (at the gov't expense) to private schools that teach our children that the earth was created in 6 days and that you should do whatever your government tells you to do. So, from that perspective the conservative support for this kind of testing makes perfect sense!

Anyway, my main complaint about the way we in America deal with education, politically, is that we are hell bent on the assumption that most or all teachers are incompetent and cannot be trusted to teach anyone anything.

and that is true of *some* but I doubt there are anymore incompetent teachers than there are incompetent lawers, doctors, journalists, etc. etc.

They are essentially punished with an unending string of regulations, evaluations, and tests (not just tests for the students, but for the teachers as well--very expensive ones they have to pay for themselves). Morale among teachers is at an all-time low.

Indeed it is. I took the CSET a year ago January and passed it. Not everyone is so lucky. And that hardly makes them bad teachers. Just means they didn't do well on the test. Some teachers will lose their jobs over this :rolleyes:

The problem with education in America is not the public servants who get paid less than they're worth to teach our children. I would even submit that the chief problem isn't lack of funding (although that's the second biggest problem). The biggest problem is the American home. It's the parents who are using television to babysit their children, who don't read with their kids, who don't take them to museums, who don't go to parent-teacher conferences and take an interest in their children's education, and who never follow up with them to make sure they are doing their homework and learning.

I would agree with you. Parent's who are involved in their children's education have children who peform at their own personal best in school. I'm not talking about pushing the child to the point that they feel the need to cheat, but rather encouraging and supporting, checking homework, etc., etc.

Education starts at birth. It doesn't end when your child starts Kindergarten/Preschool. It just changes.

SlyHunter

May 1, 2004, 07:31 PM

skunk

May 1, 2004, 07:41 PM

Desertrat

May 1, 2004, 07:56 PM

Awimoway, I have to disagree with you about any need for more funding. Per capita funding is unrelated to any sort of test scores. Washington, D.C. schools are among the highest in per capita funding, and among the worst in test scores.

One of the highest average SAT school districts in Texas is one of the state's lowest in terms of per capita funding.

It wasn't all that many years ago when the Terlingua school had one teacher for eight grades; ten students. "Damn all" for money. A point of pride for that teacher/principal/superintendant :) was how well his kids did when they went on to high school in Alpine, an 80-mile bus ride away. (We now have a "real deal" including a high school and a great library, and we're fully computerized. The kids still are doing quite well. It's a point of pride to continue the quality of "The Old Days". Traditions have meaning.)

'Rat

Neserk

May 1, 2004, 08:18 PM

If they were teaching what they were suppose to be teaching the tests would be easy. You shouldn't have to "teach to the test" because the test is just there to make sure they are learning what they are suppose to be learning.

Not true. If you took some of those behavioral science classes in college you would have a better understanding of standardized testing and its many short comings. You are also obviously *not* in education. The public is easily fooled by the "liberal" media which is not liberal at all. As well as by politicians who are only out to serve themselves.

Neserk

May 1, 2004, 08:20 PM

Desertrat

May 1, 2004, 09:20 PM

Neserk, to some extent I agree with you about parental money. However, that doesn't hold true, SFAIK, about the high-SAT district in Texas. It's in a farming/ranching community, with a relatively high percentage of rather low-paid workforce.

And in Terlingua, we're somewhere in the vicinity of 70% to 80% below poverty level. Most of the rather well-to-do are retirees without children.

Yes, money helps. But I sure don't believe it's any sort of absolute requirement. :)

'Rat

zimv20

May 1, 2004, 09:34 PM

And in Terlingua, we're somewhere in the vicinity of 70% to 80% below poverty level.
it's great that you've got a community that works, regardless of social status. is it true that, basically, everyone knows everyone else?

Neserk

May 1, 2004, 10:15 PM

Desertrat

May 2, 2004, 09:26 AM

Yeah, zim, pretty much. If you're not on satellite, there's no TV, and a lot of folks don't bother with phones. Gatherings for beers and gossip is a way of life for many. The neat thing is that the gossip is very much non-judgemental; it's information and entertainment. One of the few places where, "Well, she was drunk." is an excuse as well as a reason.

It's intriguing to me, the number of times I've been introduced to a relative newcomer and heard, "Oh. Yeah, I've heard about you." I'm startled at the amount of "Good Guy" status I apparently have. :D

A very high per capita number for college degrees and for musical skills. Some artsy-craftsy of varying degrees of talent. Lotsa campfire parties, suppers and music.

Overall, just think "extended family".

:), 'Rat

zimv20

May 2, 2004, 12:36 PM

Yeah, zim, pretty much. [...] Overall, just think "extended family".

i'm wondering how rare this is...

the community in which you live sounds pretty amazing (i like cities, so *i'd* go crazy, but no judgements :-) but i think it's "tainting" your worldview. by that, i mean a lot of what you say, imo, is advised by the prism of Terlingua, which has a set of rules that doesn't work for larger communities. the reason your rules work is because everyone knows each other, and that can lend a certain amount of societal leniency. it also lends a certain amount of societal responsibility and accountability. iow, the community trust factor is so high that no one dares violate it.

in a larger community, like chicago, the rules allow for severe transgressions against other society members. clearly, things like property crime and assault are technically illegal, but here we accept that these things occur, we just hope they can be limited.

more to the point -- in Terlingua, kids do well in school because the entire community expects and demands that. in chicago, the community is happy when the kids aren't joining gangs.

i hope i've explained this plainly enough; what's in my head doesn't always come across correctly on the page.

Desertrat

May 2, 2004, 04:56 PM

I follow your points, zim, but remember I had some fifty years of non-Terlingua living before I moved there. :)

A year in the Philippines; a tour in Korea; two years in Paris. Univ of Fla and a year in Detroit before moving back to Austin, TX, in '63. 11 years of work in state government as well as four years of consulting work with state/fed stuff. Family background of school teachers.

I've left footprints in quite a few major cities around this old world. Hong Kong, San Francisco and Paris were the best. But age has made me less tolerant of crowds and mobs and group-think.

"Gettin' old is unavoidable, but growin' up is optional."--Allen Damron, troubadour

:), 'Rat

Mav451

May 2, 2004, 05:00 PM

From that info, it sounds like your probably the same age as my old man.

I dunno, maybe I'm getting "older" too, even though i'm still only an undergrad. There was an event with at least several hundred people that I went to last night--and for some reason, I just couldn't stand it! I don't know what happened to me. I mean, clubbing is one thing (you expect to be squashed) but i mean it kind of suprised me how much I hated how crowded the event was.

Haha, guess pretty soon I'll be on the porch, sippin' some tea and reminiscing :)

Desertrat

May 2, 2004, 07:29 PM

:) First, go out and do all manner of stuff so you'll have a bunch of war stories with which to reminisce.

I disremember the exact lines, but, "I burn my candle at both ends; it will not last the night. But oh, my foes and ah, my friends, it makes a lovely light." I usually had that sucker all lit up in the middle, as well. Truth be told, I haven't quit, yet, either, which gives the BossLady the occasional set of Serious Perturbations.

There was a line in a Robert Redford mountain-man movie about one of the guys who'd spent the winter in a cave with a mountain lion, "You know, that lion never did get used to him." A lot of folks never really got used to me, either.

'Rat

Frohickey

May 3, 2004, 01:04 PM

What do you think more of your tax dollars go toward?

Social medicine programs? Or military excess?

There are NO clauses in the US Constitution about Congress' power to tax and fund social medicine programs.

There are 7 clauses in Article 1, Section 8, in the US Constitution specifically about Congress' power to tax and fund military purposes. I don't see the DoD taking up 38.8% of the federal budget.

pseudobrit

May 3, 2004, 02:27 PM

There are NO clauses in the US Constitution about Congress' power to tax and fund social medicine programs.

I didn't ask if there were. But I figured you'd dodge the question, and so you did...

There are 7 clauses in Article 1, Section 8, in the US Constitution specifically about Congress' power to tax and fund military purposes. I don't see the DoD taking up 38.8% of the federal budget.

I don't see abortion services taking $500,000,000,000 out of your pocket. You were whining about how if only the gov't would stop stealing that money from you, you'd be able to get laid. It was a truly pathetic gesture because you must know how insignificant such services are in comparison to the real killing machine of war.

I'm calling you out. Answer the damned question.

Frohickey

May 3, 2004, 02:56 PM

I didn't ask if there were. But I figured you'd dodge the question, and so you did...

I don't see abortion services taking $500,000,000,000 out of your pocket. You were whining about how if only the gov't would stop stealing that money from you, you'd be able to get laid. It was a truly pathetic gesture because you must know how insignificant such services are in comparison to the real killing machine of war.

I'm calling you out. Answer the damned question.

Are you asking me out? Do you put out on the first date? :p :eek: :p

First, you asked where most of the tax dollars went. I answered your question by stating which purposes were authorized by the US Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.

Lets see... Medicare, Medicaid, Senior Prescription Drug plan, tack on Social Security for good measure, add all of these costs up, and they outshadow whatever military spending we do have, and none of them are authorized in the US Constitution.

mactastic

May 3, 2004, 03:00 PM

I don't see anything in the Constitution about Congress's power to tax and fund NCLB... Of course the Bush administration is only mandating it, not fully funding it.

pseudobrit

May 3, 2004, 03:18 PM

First, you asked where most of the tax dollars went.

I asked where more of your tax dollars went, to the social medicine programs you were citing and being such a drain on your wallet (specifically, government funded abortion) or the military.

I answered your question by stating which purposes were authorized by the US Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.

Which means you did not answer my question. Try again.

Desertrat

May 3, 2004, 04:48 PM

Have we set a new record for Thread Drift, yet?

:D, 'Rat

Awimoway

May 3, 2004, 04:51 PM

Have we set a new record for Thread Drift, yet?

:D, 'Rat

What does it matter out here in the wild wild West of the unmoderated political forum? It's like Deadwood or something. :D

SlyHunter

May 3, 2004, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by pseudobrit
What do you think more of your tax dollars go toward?

Social medicine programs? Or military excess?

Lets see... Medicare, Medicaid, Senior Prescription Drug plan, tack on Social Security for good measure, add all of these costs up, and they outshadow whatever military spending we do have, and none of them are authorized in the US Constitution.

I answered your question by stating which purposes were authorized by the US Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.

Which means you did not answer my question. Try again.

I pasted replies together into one streamlined thought here. I did not edit what people actually said. And Pseudobrit he did answer your question --- more money is spent on social programs than on the military. Truthfully I don't know if this answer is accurate but I find Frohickey believable.

Oh forgot your ignoring me you'll never read this. Too bad.

Desertrat

May 3, 2004, 05:45 PM

pseudobrit

May 3, 2004, 06:09 PM

Rough numbers: Military spending is about 20% of the budget. Spending on social purposes runs somewhere above 40%.

A problem in just these numbers, however, is in figuring out what part of the above is for such as retirement pay or basic operating overhead, as opposed to either the O&M of military hardware plus salaries of those on duty or the actual benefits paid out by the social programs...

Here's a little page that has the official "pie" and compares it to one with Social Security removed. Even with Social Security included, though, it's arguable that the overall military excess of our nation is nearly equal in cost to our social programmes.

http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm

Since I doubt Frohickey will come up with an answer at this point, I may as well spoil it for him:

the amount of federal money spent on elective abortions is $0. http://archive.aclu.org/library/funding.html

But what do facts matter when you're on a tirade?

mactastic

May 3, 2004, 06:15 PM

But what do facts matter when you're on a tirade?

Don't forget his always-entertaining (and ever-present in discussions of abortion) assertion that if the taxpayer pays for an abortion that HE should be the one doing the inseminating.

It was amusing the first six or seven times I heard it....

Thanatoast

May 3, 2004, 06:15 PM

Desertrat's right on the numbers. The question I would raise is this: Why are we spending 20% of a >$2 trillion budget on the military? What is it, $500 billion this year? How much of that do we actually need to spend? Tens of billions for NMD? How many billions for F-22's? Who exactly are we so afraid of that we have this 200,000-man army? Saddam obviously was not worth the time, effort or cost.

The thing is, we still haven't transitioned from a Cold War mentality. We don't need a massive military-industrial complex any more. What we need, if anything, is less interference in others' affairs, and just enough military to handle the minor issues that come up on their own. Terrorism is more effectively fought by police, anyway. The military is only needed at the end of the hunt, and only in extreme circumstances.

Then we could spend the money saved (assuming we don't do something like pay down the debt incurred during this latest folly) on things like roads, education, or developing new energy sources. Government investment in green energy would help build new industries *and* solve our Middle East woes.

Desertrat

May 3, 2004, 07:32 PM

Thanatoast, from the standpoint of a "just and moral world", I'm in agreement with you. Trouble is, the world always has been and I guess always will be a pretty doggoned mean and nasty place at times.

There will always be people who want extreme amounts of power, and from time to time they rise to the top and become national leaders.

Hitler spoke of the need for "Lebensraum". The Marxists spoke of "The Dialectic" and the inevitability of World Communism. Mao didn't seem overloaded with the milk of human kindness. Governments managed to kill off over a hundred million people during the Bloody Twentieth--century, that is.

Since 1990, we haven't had any one country or empire try to create a hegemony or take over the world militarily. Be that as it may, you have a lot of folks who aren't convinced that "It'll never happen again." Homo sap has proven to be the top predator on the planet, and when you run out of mammoths and cave tigers, about all that's left is each other. Some sublimate via Trump-type business deals; some play pro football, and others run for elective office.

"There will always be wars, and rumors of wars," and, "If thou wouldst have peace, be thou prepared for war." While one might call those old Romans pessimists, homo sap's track record over the last several thousand years makes them out to be accurate prophets.

So if you want to say we should do better (or have done better) as to foreign policy to reduce the need for the use of a military, fine. No argument. I'll be the first to agree that there are many war toys in our inventory or in development which aren't needed.

But I guarantee you that so long as there is a UN, and as long as there is a NATO, there will be occasions when there will be multi-national agreement that some sort of military force is needed. I'd much rather have well-trained and well-equipped troops than to have to start from scratch as we did in WW II and nearly from scratch in Korea.

'Rat

skunk

May 3, 2004, 07:35 PM

Since 1990, we haven't had any one country or empire try to create a hegemony or take over the world militarily.
'Rat
I can think of one which might qualify... :rolleyes:

Frohickey

May 3, 2004, 09:49 PM

Since I doubt Frohickey will come up with an answer at this point, I may as well spoil it for him:

the amount of federal money spent on elective abortions is $0. http://archive.aclu.org/library/funding.html

But what do facts matter when you're on a tirade?

You have just proven my point.

At present, the federal Medicaid program mandates abortion funding in cases of rape or incest, as well as when a pregnant woman's life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury.

Most states have followed the federal government's lead in restricting public funding for abortion. Currently only eighteen states fund abortions for low-income women on the same or similar terms as other pregnancy-related and general health services. (See map.) Three of these states provide funding voluntarily (HI, NY, and WA); in fifteen, courts interpreting their state constitutions have declared broad and independent protection for reproductive choice and have ordered nondiscriminatory public funding of abortion (AK, CA, CT, ID, IL, IN, MA, MN, MT, NJ, NM, OR, TX, VT, and WV). Thirty of the remaining states pay for abortions for low-income women in cases of life-endangering circumstances, rape, or incest, as mandated by federal Medicaid law.

Is it really $0? How about the state funding?

Maybe what there should be is a checkbox in the federal and state income tax return forms. 'Check here if you want $3 to go to the Taxpayer-paid Abortion fund.'

Me, I'll hold on to my $3.

pseudobrit

May 3, 2004, 09:57 PM

You have just proven my point.

Is it really $0? How about the state funding?

Maybe what there should be is a checkbox in the federal and state income tax return forms. 'Check here if you want $3 to go to the Taxpayer-paid Abortion fund.'

Me, I'll hold on to my $3.

I'll say it again: federal dollars going to elective abortion services are $0.

You're for state's rights, no? Well, your state thinks it's the best interest of its people to provide them and also has found such funding (state) constitutional.

Why not just vote and write your state rep about it?

Frohickey

May 3, 2004, 09:59 PM

Desertrat's right on the numbers. The question I would raise is this: Why are we spending 20% of a >$2 trillion budget on the military? What is it, $500 billion this year? How much of that do we actually need to spend? Tens of billions for NMD? How many billions for F-22's? Who exactly are we so afraid of that we have this 200,000-man army? Saddam obviously was not worth the time, effort or cost.

Then we could spend the money saved (assuming we don't do something like pay down the debt incurred during this latest folly) on things like roads, education, or developing new energy sources. Government investment in green energy would help build new industries *and* solve our Middle East woes.

A nation without an adequate defense sooner or later gets conquered by someone else with one. Cheap insurance for perpetuity of culture/society, if you ask me.

Roads, yes. Education, no. New energy sources, no. Neither one of the latter two are mentioned. Best left to the states or to private individuals. Federal government can "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". That, I can agree with.

Now, lets say someone in the private sector manages to invent the anti-grav unit. Then, the government can go ahead and use public treasury to place anti-grav units along various routes and places that enable vehicles to travel in these anti-grav roads. Just got to make sure that the blue&white mail trucks use these roads ;)

Frohickey

May 3, 2004, 10:02 PM

I'll say it again: federal dollars going to elective abortion services are $0.

You're for state's rights, no? Well, your state thinks it's the best interest of its people to provide them and also has found such funding (state) constitutional.

Why not just vote and write your state rep about it?

States do not have rights. Only people have rights. How many times do you have to read the 9th & 10th Amendment to get that straight?

blackfox

May 3, 2004, 10:11 PM

This thread kind of proves why ANWR will probably not be drilled soon...I say this because, much like I believe it to be up on Capitol Hill, this thread began discussing ANWR, then moved from tangental topic to topic, mostly among partisan lines...and eventually you realize you are talking about Federal dollars for abortion...guess it is part of the human condition when discussing politics...explains why we have highway bills with provisions for snowmobile trail upkeep (bad hypothetical)...

SlyHunter

May 3, 2004, 10:13 PM

States do not have rights. Only people have rights. How many times do you have to read the 9th & 10th Amendment to get that straight?
I'm sorry but

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

SlyHunter

May 3, 2004, 10:20 PM

http://www.anwr.org/

September 29, 2003 – Alaska is not the only state that would benefit from the development of Alaska’s oil and gas resources. The fact is that new jobs would be created in all 50 states and the District of Columbia by developing ANWR’s oil and bringing Alaskan gas to the lower 48 states.

everything here is in adobe.pdf format.
Yes this is a pro-ANWR drilling site.

All Things Considered, It's a Tiny Place
September 24, 2003 – Alaska Rep. Don Young recently sent a letter to his colleague's containing an op-ed that explains clearly that tapping ANWR oil is a necessity. It's all in the numbers.

Isn't that a NPR radio show?

Thanatoast

May 4, 2004, 12:09 AM

There will always be people who want extreme amounts of power, and from time to time they rise to the top and become national leaders.You're right, and I don't mean to say that we should have no defense, just that our current military expenditures are more than overkill, they're ludicrous. New weapons systems are being developed that we don't need. Our armed forces are larger than the next 10 countries' combined. We don't need this much spending on the military.

A smaller force combined with better diplomacy and selectively choosing our fights would be better for all concerned. We're short now because W has got us occupying an entire country whose citizens don't want us there. We still have troops stationed all around the world, what is it, 144 bases in 90 countries? Something on that order. We're buying new missles and jets and we have no one to use them on, unless we start making up enemies to fight. It's stupid.

I think the EU is on the right track with its RRF. A smaller force of troops from all participating nations that will be used specifically to combat human rights abuses in and around Europe, as I understand it. Cheney is already having a fit over this potential "threat" to our military dominance. As long as we make it a game about who is on top, the only way to win will be spending ourselves into the ground trying to stay there. And there's no enemy left that could possibly justify this way of thinking.

Frohickey, I would pose this question: What would keep us more secure in the long run? Continuing support for anti-democratic regimes in the Middle East and generally meddling in the affairs of the region, thus creating the terrorism problem we now face, *or* investing in alternative energy research, thus creating jobs and encouraging foreign investment in our economy, and relieving the pressure on the cooker that is the Middle East. If you can tell me how continuing to perpetuate our own enemies is making us more secure, I'd be interested to hear your reasoning.

zimv20

May 4, 2004, 12:18 AM

There will always be people who want extreme amounts of power, and from time to time they rise to the top and become national leaders.

when i read this out of context in 'toast's post, i had to read it twice 'cuz i thought you were referring to bush

Ugg

May 4, 2004, 08:31 AM

I'll say it again: federal dollars going to elective abortion services are $0.

You're for state's rights, no? Well, your state thinks it's the best interest of its people to provide them and also has found such funding (state) constitutional.

According to Fh's circular reasoning, any federal monies spent in any way shape or form ends up being a subsidy to private enterprise. Therefore, the doctor who performs abortions probably went to a federally subsidised med school and that means that there is federal support for abortion. Then there's the nurses and office staff and, and, and.......

mactastic

May 4, 2004, 09:22 AM

You have just proven my point.

Your point being that no money from the feds funds abortions?

Is it really $0? How about the state funding?

That's a different matter. I thought you were in support of powers not delegated to the federal government being delegated to the state? So the state decided that they would fund SOME abortions in SOME circumstances. That is within the power of the state, is it not? I thought that was allowed in your philosophy? It's not the feds, so why are you complaining?

Maybe what there should be is a checkbox in the federal and state income tax return forms. 'Check here if you want $3 to go to the Taxpayer-paid Abortion fund.'

Me, I'll hold on to my $3.

Aw, come on! Where's the crack about wanting to impregnate them yourself if you're gonna pay for it? :D

And there you go again claiming it's a federal issue.... Do I get a checkbox to decide whether I want to subsidize Halliburton or not?

SlyHunter

May 4, 2004, 10:10 AM

PHILADELPHIA - The growing popularity of hybrid vehicles is a step toward cleaner air and less dependance on gasoline. But for rescuers at accident scenes, they represent a potential new danger: a network of high-voltage circuitry that may require some precise cutting to save a trapped victim.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040504/ap_on_bi_ge/hybrid_car_rescues_1

We are going to be dependant on oil for a long while we need to use our sources so as to reduce our dependancies on others. Course this could be a plan of using our sources as reserve for when the middle east runs out some day.

Frohickey

May 4, 2004, 02:54 PM

I'm sorry but

States have powers.
People have powers, they also have rights.
Government, state or federal, DO NOT have rights, if they did, why go through the trouble of having a 9th and 10th Amendment?

Frohickey

May 4, 2004, 02:56 PM

Your point being that no money from the feds funds abortions?

That's a different matter. I thought you were in support of powers not delegated to the federal government being delegated to the state? So the state decided that they would fund SOME abortions in SOME circumstances. That is within the power of the state, is it not? I thought that was allowed in your philosophy? It's not the feds, so why are you complaining?

And there you go again claiming it's a federal issue.... Do I get a checkbox to decide whether I want to subsidize Halliburton or not?

Feds do support some abortions, just not the elective ones.

I think there should be no checkbox to subsidize Haliburton. There should be no subsidies at all.

Frohickey

May 4, 2004, 03:29 PM

Frohickey, I would pose this question: What would keep us more secure in the long run? Continuing support for anti-democratic regimes in the Middle East and generally meddling in the affairs of the region, thus creating the terrorism problem we now face, *or* investing in alternative energy research, thus creating jobs and encouraging foreign investment in our economy, and relieving the pressure on the cooker that is the Middle East. If you can tell me how continuing to perpetuate our own enemies is making us more secure, I'd be interested to hear your reasoning.

Lots of stipulations in that question, so let me break it down into its component parts.

-continuing support for anti-democratic regimes
-meddling in the affairs of the region
-investing in alternative energy research

If I had to answer your question, as written, I would choose the 2nd part, where we do not support anti-democratic regimes, meddle in foreign affairs, and invest in alternative energy research.

But, if I had to pick a solution that achieves the goal of minimal chances of terrorist attacks that also follows the US Constitution, I would...

-maintain the level of the US military, and expand the role of the citizen soldier in the defense of the nation

-never support any anti-democratic regimes, in fact, remove all support for foreign regimes, that would include ALL expenditures of foreign aid to foreign countries, including Taiwan, Israel, Japan, Germany, Egypt, Jordan, etc. All expenditures are to be considered as payment for land purchases, or mineral rights purchases. (Could you see this now, we pay Middle East countries to buy their lands, or the mineral rights to the lands for a set amount of time, we then suck it dry for all its worth until the time period is done, or it becomes the 51st state. :D )

- add muscle to the enforcement of US patents via treaties with other nations in order to maximize the return on investment of enterprising individuals. If the rewards for a discovery of worldwide importance is exceedingly high, then individuals will more likely undertake the effort to discover these new technologies. (If a US patent was violated, and done so by a treaty country, treaty conditions/penalties for such violations must be followed)

I think that my solution would be a solution that would be embraced by George Washington (see his farewell speech about avoiding entangling foreign alliances) and Thomas Jefferson (see his use of the public treasury for the Louisiana Purchase).

Or...

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women! :D :D :D